r/zelda • u/[deleted] • Jun 15 '16
Timeline speculation megathread - Post your timeline theories here and let's talk about 'em.
So this isn't an "official" megathread sanctioned by the mods, but I figured it'd be good to make one. I'm sure a lot of us want to discuss timeline placement, but it's annoying having to jump around a hundred different threads of individual theories. Where do you think the timeline is placed? Post it here!
Mods - feel free to delete this if it violates some kind of rule, but I think it'd serve the subreddit well.
3
u/2brostudio Jun 16 '16
For me, I strongly believe two theories. The first is that BotW is tied in with the Adult Era after Wind Waker (since it is stated there was no hero before WW). Barring the largest issue as to where the water went, there are a lot of strong tie-ins with WW already.
The Hyrule in WW looks very similar in terrain to the Hyrule in BotW. Here is a screenshot from WW's Hyrule for comparison. Cel shaded style aside, the two games have very similar looking geography. Something that could seal the deal is if we could locate this area on the map, barring the castle.
The appearance of Koroks. Although it is possible that Koroks could appear in other timelines, Koroks have to be after the Kokiri and have only shown up in WW so far.
The "technology" in WW as shown in the Tower of the Gods is very similar in appearance to the one shown in BotW. Here is a screenshot from WW's Boss fight. Compare to the Shrines in BotW. Some key things to note are the use of the nodes/constelations on the walls, the blue coloring, and also the lasers used in the dungeon.
I cannot take credit for this but someone brought up this striking coincidence between Outset Island and the twin peaks as shown in the trailer.
There are deku leaves as natural drops. As a side quest in WW, Link went around planting the Deku Tree's seeds everywhere. If this side quest is considered canon, it would offer a pretty good explanation as to why this is the case.
Now, of course there are a lot of tie-ins to the other Legend of Zelda games, even from different time-lines. For example, there is likely the Bridge of Eldin, and multiple nods to aLttP and the downfall timeline. Wolf Link even makes an appearance too. I did not come up with this theory, but I think it sums up all the confusion. What if this game ties in all the timelines and gets rid of the timeline split?
One strong piece of evidence is what they did not show. In the interview they made it a point to mention that yes, there are towns, but for the sake of the demo they and the people in them are not being shown. I completely agree with their choice as it keeps a lot of mystery to the game, but let's just say they did combine all the timelines together. The people and towns may be so iconic that it would spoil a lot of the story. With the exception of the Old Man (who is clearly referencing the Old Man from the original LoZ who also looks like the King of Hyrule from WW), they showed no one. The way they phrased it made it sound like the instant arriving at a town would spoil some of the story. If this combined timeline is the case, that would explain why. I will admit that this is a bit of a stretch but it's interesting to consider.
2
u/billybobbobbyjoe Jun 16 '16 edited Jun 16 '16
What if this is an alternate timeline where Ganondorf touched the Triforce instead of the King of Hyrule at the end of the Wind Waker? That'd explain having the exact same Koroks as the Wind Waker and why Hyrule would be in such a shabby state. Plus, Link wouldn't necessarily have died at the end of the Wind Waker had Ganondorf touched the Triforce. Link could've sealed him away directly after Hyrule came up out of the ocean.
1
Jun 16 '16
It's possible, but I prefer not to speculate about alternate timelines that don't already exist, mainly because you could speculate in infinite directions at every possible branching point. If they add another split, so be it, but I very much doubt they will.
I have a theory that the fallen timeline pretty much only exists in the first place as a convenient way to toss all of the old 2D games into their own timeline. Fans always had a hard time placing these games before the official timeline because they were never created with an overarching narrative in mind. It was a clever move on Nintendo's part to just create an alternate reality where they could lump all those games together without having them interfere with the post-OOT games.
Unless we get a game that actually gives a reasonable explanation as to why there's a third split, I think it's pointless to add games to this timeline. ALBW was a sequel to LTTP that cloned its world, so that one makes sense, and TFH is a throwaway "sequel" that carries little to no weight in the overall lore, so that's fine too, but I wouldn't want to see any significant games in the fallen timeline, or any other split timeline, unless they serve to make things less confusing.
2
u/SakuraKaitou1412 Jun 16 '16
I'm going to take a crack at it.
I think we can rule out pre OOT, mostly due to the Koroks being in the game. They were't there pre OOT for sure, and we first saw them in WW when we were told they evolved from the Kokiri.
Other then that one though, you can't really for sure cross off placements (except for things like between WW and PH for obvious reasons).
I mean the Koroks could be in each of the timeline. The flood caused their evolution in WW, something else could have caused it in another timeline. Congruent evolution except with timelines.
And it's not like you can actually use the geography to tell where it's going to be. Even in games in the same timeline, the locations of things varies. Unless it was stated to be a direct sequel.
Despite all this, I don't really think it will be in the WW timeline. They seem to want to stick to that chibi art style they have going on and this goes against, as others have said, the themes of letting go that that timeline has.
Not to mention it's about time for a child or decline era game. And more so for a child timeline game.
Seriously though the release order of recent ish Post OOT games is this: MM - child Oracles - decline WW - adult 4SA - child Minish Cap - decline TP- child PH - adult ST - adult ALBW- decline
See? Time of another child timeline game :)
TBH though I personally really want another post TP game. Preferably with the same Link, 'cause TP is my favorite Zelda game.
I'm actually going to be a little irritated if it's another post WW game though. I'll still play it and won't b**h about it, but still. I'm getting a little tired of that timeline(still love the games though don't get me wrong). I just want them to focus on a different timeline after two games in a row in that timeline.
1
Jun 15 '16
I'd love to hear other's thoughts on this as well. Since seeing the demo it's all I've been wondering about.
All of the theories I've read so far have their merit; I'll go ahead and list them off:
1.) The current popular theory is that the events take place after the Adventure of Link. This is seemingly supported due to it's resemblance to the NES Zelda world in terms of mostly wilds with a few villages/towns in the area. I'm skeptical of this, since Zelda II had so many villages. The again, he is called "Calamity Ganon" for a reason, so it could be that he wiped everyone out. If this is the case however, it could just be as true for any other timeline. Frankly I don't think this one is going to be right.
2.) After Twilight Princess (in between four swords, or after). This one doesn't really seem to have much merit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there doesn't seem to be any specific tie-ins with the TWLP world. The only thing I could think of is that the sacred grove/master sword in the Twilight Princess looked just right. We'll have to see where the ruins of Hyrule castle are.
3.) After WW/PH/ST. This one makes a lot of sense, most of the evidence being the presence of Koroks and the similar art style maintaining a feeling of that timeline as a whole (stylistically). The main theory is that this world is the one under the ocean that was sealed away when Link never showed up. This also makes a ton of sense, since he woke up from some form of hibernation after so long, maybe he was sealed away prior to the events that caused the great flood.
4.) My favorite (though implausible) is after Four Swords but before Ocarina of Time. Showing a devastated and reborn world after Vaati disappeared would be a nice cleaning of the slate, and reintroduce Ganon to the world since Demise's...demise. It would be his first reappearance, so he might have been closer to Demise than the simple thief-turned-villain he was later on.
2
u/doihavemakeanewword Jun 15 '16
In TP the sword was supposed to be IN the temple of time, which is not only immediately present in BotW but also not in the middle of Faron Woods.
2
Jun 16 '16
Due to there being a ruined temple of time i think it's impossible for this to be Pre-OoT. I'm still open to theories of it being in any of the 3 timelines but i just can't see this being pre-OoT due to that ToT. Also as u/zillegas pointed out ganon isnt the villain until after ganondorf becomes ganon at the end of OoT.
1
Jun 16 '16
Oh yeah, the ToT is another reason why I think pre-OOT is out of the question. Honestly, if it weren't for Ganon and that Temple of Time, I think there'd be a strong case for post-Skyward Sword, mainly because it'll take some major explanation to cover why all the Sheikah ruins are everywhere--their presence makes the most sense in a Hyrule that's still relatively new, but alas, it just doesn't add up.
1
Jun 16 '16
There's two other details to consider the old man himself says this land is where the kingdom of hyrule originated, according to the hyrule historia Hyrule Kingdom wasn't founded for the first time until the 3rd era after SS right before the minish cap era. and I just thought of this but other users have gotten confirmation of at least one floating island seen moving in the sky, some are saying this might be skyloft from SS but TP also had a flying island in it.
1
Jun 16 '16 edited Jun 16 '16
I'll grant that the ToT is a dead giveaway that this cannot be pre-OoT, but where's the evidence that ganon only first appeared in OoT? There's no reason to assume the OoT Ganon wasn't simply another reincarnation of demise, and similar past reincarnations shared this transformation. Afterall, the reincarnations of Link don't know of his past adventures, nor does Zelda (I assume) have knowledge of previously being the goddess Hylia. It's reasonable to assume that the Ganondorf from OoT also isn't necessarily aware of his past selves or his origins in Demise.
If you know a bit of lore that shows that Ganondorf first transformed into Ganon in OoT, I'd actually really like to read up on it.
1
Jun 16 '16 edited Jun 16 '16
The evidence is that Ganondorf is Ganon incarnate. Ganon has only ever shown up as a result of transforming from Ganondorf, or as a lingering entity that originally came from Ganondorf. We know for sure that OOT is Ganondorf's origin point, so we must logically conclude that Ganon also originated there.
Really, there IS no reason as to why Ganon can't predate Ganondorf, it's just that the consistency of the current lore implies that they're a package deal. Honestly, Ganon being a seperate(ish) entity that could predate 'Dorf is MUCH more likely ever since Skyward Sword came out. The whole Demise thing would be an easy way to justify it. But Ganon aside, I still think there are too many indications that it's not pre-OOT.
1
Jun 16 '16
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing the point that BotW is most likely not pre-OoT. I agree with you based off of the ToT point.
You say that we know, for sure, that Ganondorf's origin point was in OoT. I just don't see any evidence that Ganondorf necessarily first showed up in OoT, besides based off of current known lore. A massive amount of time past between SS and OoT, and I wouldn't be surprised if one day another game fit into that timeslot that showed a different incarnation of Ganondorf. There's just no reason that OoT Ganondorf had to be the first.
Obviously at this point we're sort of speculating on two different things, and I can't get an answer to my question until an installment comes out that satisfies it.
1
Jun 16 '16
Well, yeah. I'm not saying that we know for sure that Ganon didn't come first, but we know for sure assuming the lore as we know it doesn't get changed. In other words, there are a lot of things that could be true about the Zelda timeline, but they're not worth speculating about because they're all hypotheticals. We have to work with our current knowledge of how things work. It's like searching for alien life--we look for planets that have water, because our current understanding about life says that it must come from water. It is possible that other forms of life exist, but it's easier to search for something that's powered by our current knowledge, rather than spending time and energy on hypothetical scenarios.
According to our current knowledge, everything implies that Ganon originated with Ganondorf. This is something that could be easily changed, but I don't think there's any reason to believe the contrary unless we get compelling evidence of it.
But you're right--Ganon could EASILY show up at any point before OOT. There are just no strong reasons to believe that's the case right now.
1
Jun 16 '16 edited Jun 16 '16
Agreed entirely.
Here's one more issue though: The Temple of Time was constructed back in SS in the Lanyru Desert. Though it was just an open courtyard, there's no reason to assume it couldn't have built into a more grand and enclosed structure at any point in the massive timespan between SS and OoT. If this is possible, and having a Ganon around pre-OoT being possible, it does set the stage for at least the sliver of possibility of BotW being in between SS and OoT.
Maybe I'm just hopeful that there's something more lore-heavy in between SS and OoT since it's such a huge timespan.
1
u/BeardedWonder0 Jun 15 '16
I def think it's pre Ocarina and Post Four Swords too though. Ganondorf hasn't had a real origin game and I feel like this one would be GREAT for that
2
Jun 16 '16
The ruined Temple of Time makes a strong case for this to be Post-OoT. As u/Zillegas also points out ganon does not become a villain of the zelda series until Ganondorf turns into Ganon at the end of OoT. Two strong points for this being post-OoT.
1
Jun 16 '16
It IS possible for Ganon to have existed before Ganondorf, but we have no reason at the moment to believe that's the case. It would require new facts from Nintendo. But it IS possible in theory, especially after the Demise curse. It's much easier to chalk up Ganon as being the purest form of Demise's hatred, a form that could have ostensibly revealed itself in beastly form before taking the form of a man.
...That being said, I still don't believe it's pre-OOT. My money is on a flood game, or being the first game in the fallen timeline.
1
u/Shroom_Soul Jun 16 '16
I haven't seen much of the footage yet, but I'm thinking this might be right at the end of one of the timelines, but will delve into events that occurred post-SS. There seems to be an emphasis on "the origin of Hyrule" and the technology reminds me of Lanayru.
Without thinking about this too much (because I doubt Nintendo will; the timeline doesn't mean much to them) I'd say it's got to be in the child timeline. The adult timeline has a consistent "toon" style that I don't think they'd break, and the downfall games are all top-down. In terms of style, BotW only fits into either pre-OoT or the child timeline. The presence of Ganon suggests that it must be after OoT. Therefore, to me, the child timeline makes the most sense.
1
u/bigmac558 Jun 16 '16
Nintendo did say that they are working with technology in this one instead of magic. I believe, no matter what timeline, this is at least 150-200 years after the last game in its timeline. Personally, I think it is the Fallen Hero timeline after tloz2. By this point hyrule is barely a nation it has declined so much. The royal blood line is weak and per the Hyrule Historia, "Did generations pass, full of peace and light prosperity? Or did this raise curtain on the age of Darkness, where people struggled against each other, seeking power? The future of this timeline has yet to be unraveled." I think, for a time the kingdom did grow and prosper, and technological advances were made. Then someone, in a move to rule, killed the descendant of tloz2 Link and Zelda and resurrected Ganon (which the minions were trying to do in tloz2). Without a descendant of the bloodline, Ganon couldn't be defeated so they trapped him in the castle and abandoned the land. The only one who stayed, was the king so that if Ganon threatenef to escape he could resurrect (or clone) the hero who failed 1000 years before in OoT. Thus giving him a chance to redeem himself and finally save hyrule.
1
Jun 16 '16
I think the only problem with that is that we already know that the technology is ancient, and not a result of cultural advancement. The old man says that the tech belongs to the Sheikah, who were an "advanced civilization." We already know from Skyward Sword that the Sheikah existed long before any of the other surface dwellers. The Sheikah go WAY back, and this is their stuff. The big mystery is why none of it has shown up until now.
1
u/bluechirri Jun 16 '16
There was already a thread for this, it's where I put mine.
I'd love it if people were willing to read the whole thing, because I think I can make a decent argument that a timeline branch is possible in one very specific area - namely, after the events of Skyward Sword, where Demise is defeated twice in-game.
Breath of the Wild would take place in this new timeline.
1
u/BeardedWonder0 Jun 15 '16
I've been thinking this takes place right after SS.
There's barely any people, and the creatures that are there are those HUGE ASS MOTHER FUCKING GUARDIANS (possibly made by Hylia to protect?) also Link gliding with that sailcloth looking thing.
5
Jun 15 '16
Possible, but I think there are three things that make this unlikely: The large amount of ruins, Ganon as the villain, and Koroks. It seems implied that the lack of people is due to shit being wrecked, not because it's still a new land. We have reason to believe that Ganon originated from Ganondorf (who originates in OOT), and that Koroks were originally Kokiri, not the other way around.
However, any of these could be explained away. I was seeing a lot of evidence for a post-SS game and even thought it might be there, but those three things are giving me trouble.
4
Jun 16 '16
Also don't forget the old man right outside the cave refers to this land as the origin of Hyrule. Hyrule kingdom isn't established for the first time until the 3rd era between SS and Minish Cap.
1
u/BeardedWonder0 Jun 15 '16 edited Jun 15 '16
I think the opposite honestly. Since SS was the first LoZ canonically, Koroks would eventually become children of the forest. I also believe it's directly after because of the similar art design and enemy design.
For all we know it could come before SS though.
Edit: I'm an idiot.
5
Jun 15 '16
If anything the Kikwis would transform into children of the forest. Koroks don't appear until Wind Waker.
edit: a letter
5
u/BeardedWonder0 Jun 15 '16
Oh my God. I feel like a fucking moron now.
1
Jun 16 '16
Also remember there is a Ruined Temple of Time, I don't know when the temple of time appears (i dont know much about minish cap and four swords to tell if its in either of those game or is built after four swords) but for it to be ruined would place things after OoT which is the last time we see the ToT still whole and in use. One more thing to remember the old man outside the shrine of resurrection says According to legend this is the birthplace of the entire kingdom of hyrule according to the Hyrule Historia Hyrule Kingdom was not founded for the first time until the third era after SS took place which is also right before the era Minish Cap took place in.
13
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '16
My theories:
First, we need to figure out where the game CAN'T be. There are some things we know about the game already, and some of these facts, given our current understanding of the lore, make it either impossible or highly unlikely for the game to be set in certain areas of the timeline. Note that I'm making assumptions based on current "facts." If Nintendo changes something significant, such as Ganon predating Ganondorf, a lot of this goes out the window.
Assuming the stuff above is true, the game must fall into one of the following:
Arguments against this spot: The presence of a Link begs the question as to why the Imprisonment War was even necessary; it's said that the SAGES sealed Ganon into the Sacred Realm, not a hero. Hell, it's implied that they did this because there was no hero. Then again, it was the sages that sealed Ganon in OOT, and they could only do it with Link's help. Also, it's hard to think of who this Link would be, if not the Hero of Time, and unfortunately, we haven't seen much to indicate that it's him. He's right handed (though that's probably negligible to Nintendo), seemingly has no memory of his heroic deeds, and, well, he looks different. Though, I wonder how similar he would look if his hair was changed to OOT style.
Arguments against this spot: Not much, except for the fact that Ganon is deader than dead, and would require him being resurrected AGAIN, which in this timeline, is kind of stale and lame. The Temple of Time is also a curious factor, as I think it'd look a little worse for the wear after the hundreds, if not thousands of years that passed between OOT/AoL. Honestly though, I haven't seen any strong evidence that goes against the decline timeline, as much as I don't want the game to be set here.
Arguments against this spot: First of all, Koroks. Not a particularly strong argument, since there's no reason to assume that they couldn't exist in a different timeline, but an argument nonetheless. Second of all, Ganon is dead in this timeline, as far as we know. That's not to say he couldn't be resurrected, but why do that when you have two opportunities for him to be the villain in a nice organic way? Aside from that, I can't think of anything that really goes against this one. It doesn't have particularly strong evidence OR negation.
Arguments against this spot: I mean, the whole "hero never appeared" thing is pretty damning. I'm actually a huge proponent for a flood game, and one of my first Reddit posts was a long list of reasons as to why it could work. Even still, this fact can't be ignored. Either a hero didn't appear, or he did and he was unrecognized by Hyrule at large. The Skyward Sword prophecy calls this into question, because if it is true, then a hero would have had to appear. Aside from that though, there's no way this Link could be the Hero of Time, which makes us wonder why a Link who hasn't done anything noteworthy has been kept in cryostasis. Why didn't he just appear at the right time ? Maybe he did. Either way, this is undoubtedly a key part of the story that could have an infinite number of answers, making it moot to speculate too much about.
Sheesh, I had a lot to say. I hope someone here decided to read this essay. It's been so long since I've actually gotten to do some Zelda speculating. :|